For those of you who don't know, Col. Allen West is running for U.S.
Congressman Ron Klein's seat in Florida. Attached is his article
regarding the shootings at Ft. Hood, Texas.

Please take a few minutes to read what he wrote.

“Tragedy at Ft Hood”
Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret)

This past Thursday 13 American Soldiers were killed and another 30 wounded
at a horrific mass shooting at US Army installation, Ft Hood Texas. As I
watched in horror and then anger I recalled my two years of final service
in the Army as a Battalion Commander at Ft Hood, 2002-2004.

My wife and two daughters were stunned at the incident having lived on the
post in family housing.

A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or
Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their
families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our “Band of Brothers
and Sisters” can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole but as
family units.

A military installation is supposed to be a place where our Warriors train
for war, to serve and protect our Nation.

On Thursday, 5 November 2009 Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in
the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism.

There may be those who feel threatened by my words and would even
recommend they not be uttered. To those individuals I say step aside
because now is not the time for cowardice. Our Country has become so
paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and
determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an
Army post.

We have become so politically correct that our media is more concerned
about the stress of the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The misplaced
benevolence intending to portray him as a victim is despicable. The fact t
hat there are some who have now created an entire new classification
called; “pre-virtual vicarious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)” is
unconscionable.

This is not a “man caused disaster”. It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist
attack.

We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne
Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his
Commanding Officer’s tent in Kuwait. We have seen the foiled attempt of
Albanian Muslims who sought to attack Ft Dix, NJ. Recently we saw a young
convert to Islam named Carlos Bledsoe travel to Yemen, receive terrorist
training, and return to gun down two US Soldiers at a Little Rock,
Arkansas Army recruiting station. We thwarted another Islamic terrorist
plot in North Carolina which had US Marine Corps Base, Quantico as a
target.

What have we done with all these prevalent trends? Nothing.

What we see are recalcitrant leaders who are refusing to confront the
issue, Islamic terrorist infiltration into America, and possibly further
into our Armed Services. Instead we have a multiculturalism and diversity
syndrome on steroids.

Major Hasan should have never been transferred to Ft Hood, matter of fact
he should have been Chaptered from the Army. His previous statements, poor
evaluation reports, and the fact that the FBI had him under investigation
for jihadist website posting should have been proof positive.

However, what we have is a typical liberal approach to find a victim, not
the 13 and 30 Soldiers and Civilian, but rather the poor shooter. A
shooter who we are told was a great American, who loved the Army and
serving his Nation and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
stating that his actions had nothing to do with religious belief.

We know that Major Hasan deliberately planned this episode; he did give
away his possessions. He stood atop a table in the confined space of the
Soldier Readiness Center shouting “Allahu Akhbar”, same chant as the 9-11
terrorists and those we fight against overseas in the Iraq and Afghanistan
theaters of operation.

No one in leadership seems willing to sound the alarm for the American
people; they are therefore complicit in any future attacks. Our Congress
should suspend the insidious action to vote on a preposterous and
unconstitutional healthcare bill and resolve the issue of “protecting the
American people”.

The recent incidents in Dearborn Michigan, Boston Massachusetts, Dallas
Texas, and Chicago Illinois should bear witness to the fact that we have
an Islamic terrorism issue in America. And don’t have CAIR call me and try
to issue a vanilla press statement; they are an illegitimate terrorist
associated organization which should be disbanded.

We have Saudi Arabia funding close to 80% of the mosques in the United
States, one right here in South Florida, Pompano Beach. Are we building
churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia? Are “Kaffirs” and “Infidels”
allowed travel to Mecca?

So much for peaceful coexistence.

Saudi Arabia is sponsoring radical Imams who enter into our prisons and
convert young men into a virulent Wahabbist ideology….one resulting in
four individuals wanting to destroy synagogues in New York with plastic
explosives. Thank God the explosives were dummy. They are sponsoring
textbooks which present Islamic centric revisionist history in our
schools.

We must recognize that there is an urgent need to separate the
theo-political radical Islamic ideology out of our American society. We
must begin to demand surveillance of suspected Imams and mosques that are
spreading hate and preaching the overthrow of our Constitutional
Republic……that speech is not protected under First Amendment, it is
sedition and if done by an American treason.

There should not be some 30 Islamic terrorist training camps in America
that has nothing to do with First Amendment, Freedom of Religion. The
Saudis are not our friends and any American political figure who believes
such is delusional.

When tolerance becomes a one way street it certainly leads to cultural
suicide. We are on that street. Liberals cannot be trusted to defend our
Republic, because their sympathies obviously lie with their perceived
victim, Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

I make no apologies for these words, and anyone angered by them, please,
go to Ft Hood and look into the eyes of the real victims. The tragedy at
Ft Hood Texas did not have to happen. Consider now the feelings of those
there and on every military installation in the world. Consider the
feelings of the Warriors deployed into combat zones who now are concerned
that their loved ones at home are in a combat zone.

When I first heard that the shooter was a mental health professional I thought "Who watches the Watchmen?"

They were sending him over & kept him in service because he was needed. There's a shortage of mental health pros in the armed forces so they couldn't afford to lose him. They took that chance because they thought it's better to have an unhappy psychologist (or whatever he was) over there than none.

1. The US and it's allies have spent ~2trillion dollars to stop "Islamic jihadist attack(s)". Since 9/12 more than 4,000 Americans have been killed by terrorist. How much does he think will need to be spent to stop all such attacks? Where in the world does he think that money is going to come from?

2."The reality of your enemy must become your own." Apparently the good colonel never actually read the oath he took when he was commissioned in the US Army. He is no longer in the Army but he might want to take a look at the oath that a congressman takes.

3. "Loyal" does not describe someone advocating ignoring the US Constitution.

4. I would posit that a person advocating ignoring the constitution poses at least as big a threat to the US as does a Jihadist.

We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his
Commanding Officer’s tent in Kuwait. We have seen the foiled attempt of
Albanian Muslims who sought to attack Ft Dix, NJ. Recently we saw a young
convert to Islam named Carlos Bledsoe travel to Yemen, receive terrorist
training, and return to gun down two US Soldiers at a Little Rock,
Arkansas Army recruiting station. We thwarted another Islamic terrorist
plot in North Carolina which had US Marine Corps Base, Quantico as a
target.

We saw radical Christian Scott Roeder shoot Dr. George Tiller to death while in his church. We saw radical Christian Jim D. Adkisson open fire on a Unitarian Universalist church in Tennessee. We saw radical anti-establishment wackjobs Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold go on a rampage at Columbine High School, and Seung-Hui Cho did the same at Virginia Tech. Then of course there's Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Anthony Sowell, and Jason Rodriguez.

Clearly, the solution is to simply lock up all Christians, White people, Black people, Asians, and Hispanics because they're potential mass murderers.

A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or
Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their
families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our “Band of Brothers
and Sisters” can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole but as
family units.

The author seems to forget that the shooter, in this case, was one of the "warriors" who was in his "sanctuary".

Quote:

We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne
Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his
Commanding Officer’s tent in Kuwait.

And yet, another warrior.

The problem with writings like this is that it belittles the work of those in uniform and out who are doing plenty to keep the country safe and the jihadists away from targets. He brings up in two examples of thwarted attempts to attack US targets, then uses them as examples where there is nothing being done. He does not connect the thwarting with action on behalf of some agency(ies).

4. I would posit that a person advocating ignoring the constitution poses at least as big a threat to the US as does a Jihadist.

If you really believe that a speech act can be equally bad as murder, I disagree with your post more than the OP link.

Advocate ignoring the constitution? That sounds like me. Although not my first choice (which is repeal), I personally advocate ignoring the second amendment. I also advocate ignoring vague parts of the constitution, such as the ninth and tenth amendments. Does this make me as big a threat as people who shoot at us? By your logic, yes.

The definition of treason in the US constitution is open to interpretation. Personally, I agree with my constitution that a US citizen "levying war" against the United States is treasonous, but disagree with the framers that "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" should be enough to cause someone to face the terrible penalties associated with treason in the US (at least five years in prison with possibility of execution). West could make a reasonable case that his expansive interpretation of treason is what the framers intended. And I very much doubt they considered the first amendment to change the definition of treason.

As for the OP link, parts of it are nonsense because the Obama administration, which I support, is already engaging in some the surveillance he advocates.

If you really believe that a speech act can be equally bad as murder, I disagree with your post more than the OP link.

Advocate ignoring the constitution? That sounds like me. Although not my first choice (which is repeal), I personally advocate ignoring the second amendment. I also advocate ignoring vague parts of the constitution, such as the ninth and tenth amendments. Does this make me as big a threat as people who shoot at us? By your logic, yes.

I think your approach is dangerous.

Quote:

The definition of treason in the US constitution is open to interpretation.

If you really believe that a speech act can be equally bad as murder, I disagree with your post more than the OP link.

Advocate ignoring the constitution? That sounds like me.

I think you are reading something into my post that wasn't there.

"Jihadist" is not the same thing as murderer. Indeed, Jihad does not necessarily involve violence at all. It is only the western interpretation of the meaning of the world that equates Jihad with violence and most often with just plain terrorism.

Besides, the part of the Constitution that the colonel wants to ignore mostly has to do with killing people that are (1) not military combatants in the traditional sense and (2) more properly described as criminals. Just because a person is identified as a "Jihadist" doesn't mean they should be killed, which is what the Colonel appears to be suggesting.

To disagree with the constitution is one thing. To suggest that offing random people suspected of being possible "Jihadists" is morally repugnant.

The good colonel said:

Quote:

The reality of your enemy must become your own.

Dropping to the moral level of the terrorist is even more repugnant. The good colonel would justify the killing of many innocents just to make a point. A predator drone wouldn't even have to be targeting a suspected terrorist; it could just be aimed at a random Afghani village ... that is our "enemies reality". That is repugnant and morally bereft.

"Jihadist" is not the same thing as murderer. Indeed, Jihad does not necessarily involve violence at all.

Here's what you wrote:

"I would posit that a person advocating ignoring the constitution poses at least as big a threat to the US as does a Jihadist."

You referred to "a threat," and used the word big. Jihad as self-improvement is obviously no threat, big or otherwise; in context, you were writing about the threatening jihad definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

It is only the western interpretation of the meaning of the world that equates Jihad with violence and most often with just plain terrorism.

If you want to define jihad as self-improvement and/or non-violent seeking of social reform, fine. But the statement of yours quoted immediately above, that equating Jihad with violence is "only the Western interpretation," is mistaken. Consider that one of the official names for for al-Qa'ida is the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders:

Quote:

Current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems “non-Islamic” and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries–particularly Saudi Arabia. Issued statement under banner of “the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders” in February 1998, saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens—civilian or military—and their allies everywhere. (emphasis added)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

To suggest that offing random people suspected of being possible "Jihadists" is morally repugnant.

West doesn't say this. Instead, he says, for example:

Quote:

Major Hasan should have never been transferred to Ft Hood, matter of fact he should have been Chaptered from the Army.

Other than honorable discharge != offing.

Not only does West fail to call for offing random Muslims, as far as I can tell, he wants them to be continued to be welcomed into the US armed forces, so long as they are loyal.

The reason West's tirade is morally repugnant is because it attempts to gin up an emotional clash of civilizations. But if you take away the verbal theatrics, the policies he advocates (surveillance, release from the US military of people who like to argue in favor of our enemies) are probably in the ballpark of what you can expect from the Obama administration.